No US fighting during WWII

[TScott]

Once again I stress that I am not unthankful for your aid in the war. But it seems we have different views in regard to why you entered it.

You aren't? All I have to go on is what you post, and what you have posted so far shows that you most certainly are.

 

[TheReasoner]

You aren't? All I have to go on is what you post, and what you have posted so far shows that you most certainly are.

Well. I'm not. It's just let's take a comparison...
Let's say you had an accident, and I gave you a blood transfusion which saved your life.

You'd be thankful

But if I kept mentioning that every time we met. And every family member in my family mentioned it every time you met them, you'd get pretty annoyed with it after a short while...

I'm thankful, yes. You bled and died with us, and I don't want to forget or ignore that. But it IS frustrating to hear you mention it over and over and over and over again.
Makes me frustrated. So, it's not that I'm not thankful. Just airing frustration.

 

[TScott]

They didn't enter the war until they were attacked by the Japanese. Your assertion that Europeans should be grateful for Americans fighting during the war because Hitler was no threat to the US suggests that the US were in the war solely to help Europe out and had no national interest in the war. If that had been the case they would either have been in on it from 1939, or not at all.

No, of course there were economic and political interests, there is no doubt that the American people were mostly sympathetic to the democracies, I already said so. The day after Pearl Harbor we dexlared war on Japan. Hitler then declared war on the United States. We bagan helping with supplies a year earlier and were drifting closer to war with Hitler anyway. A few months before Pearl Harbor a german submarine sank an American destroyer escorting supplies to GB. It was only a matter of time before we entered the war anyway. But the point is when you want your guys to go fight in a war you have to give them a better reason than just because it's economically better to support one side or another, they must have what to them is a more important reason. The feeling in the USA, by the American people that is, prior to 1941 was 5that while they sided with the democracies, they were soft on sending soldiers over there again to fight in what they saw as a European conflict. Of course the Japanese took care of that and then when Hitler declared war on us the next day that was all it took to rally the troops and public opinion.

Again, I could care less if Europe is grateful or not. Go ahead and revise history to satisfy you national egos. All I'm saying is that you ought to be. Obviously you aren't. So be it.

 

[marshlewis]

I think that because of the recent actions of the USA many people are looking back in history and trying to associate current motives with past motives. This is what the western powers did during the cold war regaurding Soviet participation in WW2. Only now is the west giving the soviets thier due credit for doing most of the fighting.

To suggest that the USA was not needed to win the war is ridiculous and obviously unsupported by the facts. To suggest that the USA only entered the war for selfish reasons is also unsupportable. Yes the USA assimilates others history into US history but this is no reason to do the same.

 

[redkingjoe]

The 'Rape of Nanking' took place from December 1937 to March 1938, roughly. At the same time it was never a directly sanctioned action. But one that came about in the field due to the fact that the Japanese for all intents and purposes faced a well entrenched insurgency.

At no point did Japan ever entertain the idea of 'conquering' the US. Every asset they had was already commited in East Asia and Japans naval logistics were in the ******* as soon as the war started. By ******* I mean they were short some 2 million tons of shipping per year.

As for you final point. I like my unagi-don.

it's a world war!! the japan did attack the US in the Pearl Harbour and after that they also attacked the US on those island without much success. also Japan was joined by the Germany and Italy to attack and try to conquer various parts of the world.

i'm sure US was one of the target...either through the German or through the US...it's the historical fact that japan and germany were not able to do so rather than not wanting to

 

[Redneck]

I think that because of the recent actions of the USA many people are looking back in history and trying to associate current motives with past motives. This is what the western powers did during the cold war regaurding Soviet participation in WW2. Only now is the west giving the soviets thier due credit for doing most of the fighting.

To suggest that the USA was not needed to win the war is ridiculous and obviously unsupported by the facts. To suggest that the USA only entered the war for selfish reasons is also unsupportable. Yes the USA assimilates others history into US history but this is no reason to do the same.

The T-34/76 is a far better tank than the M4 Sherman!

 

[TScott]

The T-34/76 is a far better tank than the M4 Sherman!

I think a German tank commander said that in his opinion the Tiger was 10 times better than the Sherman, but that unfortunately the Shermans outnumbered them 15 to 1!

 

[TheReasoner]

I think a German tank commander said that in his opinion the Tiger was 10 times better than the Sherman, but that unfortunately the Shermans outnumbered them 15 to 1!

The tiger was an extremely good tank. Thankfully they were never produced in large enough numbers to tip the scales significantly.

The Sherman was produced in extreme numbers. In fact, if my memory serves me there were more Shermans than there were crews for them. The Americans even offered to give them to the Russians. The Russians refused; Their own tanks were better, and they had plenty of them.
Ofcourse, such vast numbers of tanks on the allieds' side while the Nazis had problems producing enough - was a very good thing for us.

 

[Agrippa]

The tiger was an extremely good tank. Thankfully they were never produced in large enough numbers to tip the scales significantly.

Actually, I wished the Germans had produced more of them. That way, they would have had a lot fewer Panzer IV's and Panthers (you could produce several Panzer IV's for each Tiger). By the second half of the war, the Germans needed quantity.

The Sherman was produced in extreme numbers. In fact, if my memory serves me there were more Shermans than there were crews for them. The Americans even offered to give them to the Russians. The Russians refused; Their own tanks were better, and they had plenty of them.

The Soviets in fact used Shermans for several Guards Tank divisions because of their greater endurance compared to Soviet tanks.

Ofcourse, such vast numbers of tanks on the allieds' side while the Nazis had problems producing enough - was a very good thing for us.

The Germans proved to be rather inefficient engineers. Yes, they could produce some of the best weapons of the war, but insisted on adding so many minor refinements and using so many different models that any sort of mass production was impossible. The United States, on the other hand, simplified its production line. IIRC, the US Army ended up using only three different types of engines. Everything was made as simple as possible. So, at the end, the Germans were left with a WWI-style army with a few points of modernity (the panzer divisions) while the entire US army (~90 divisions) was mechanized (with shiploads of material being exported to allied nations).

 

[ScottishJohn]

The Germans proved to be rather inefficient engineers. Yes, they could produce some of the best weapons of the war, but insisted on adding so many minor refinements and using so many different models that any sort of mass production was impossible. The United States, on the other hand, simplified its production line. IIRC, the US Army ended up using only three different types of engines. Everything was made as simple as possible. So, at the end, the Germans were left with a WWI-style army with a few points of modernity (the panzer divisions) while the entire US army (~90 divisions) was mechanized (with shiploads of material being exported to allied nations).

The United states definately produced quantity, Germany however was always, (and still is) well known for the quality and efficiency of their engineering - they may not have mastered mass production to the extent that America did during the war - I can't comment on that, but I do know that for every one Tiger tank killed five Shermans were needed and only one Sherman would survive the engagement - with those statistics they could practically custom finish every tank! They could afford to produce 1 to every 4 Shermans, and still win!

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/tiger.htm

(Remember Donald Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes! He had to get behind the Tiger to stand a chance!)

 

[Agrippa]

The United states definately produced quantity, Germany however was always, (and still is) well known for the quality and efficiency of their engineering - they may not have mastered mass production to the extent that America did during the war - I can't comment on that, but I do know that for every one Tiger tank killed five Shermans were needed and only one Sherman would survive the engagement - with those statistics they could practically custom finish every tank! They could afford to produce 1 to every 4 Shermans, and still win!

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/tiger.htm

(Remember Donald Sutherland in Kelly's Heroes! He had to get behind the Tiger to stand a chance!)

The problem with German equipment was that it was over-engineered. They didn't know when to just stop and put the thing into production. By adding small improvements they slowed production and made logistics for units in the field more complicated. At the end of the war, Germany managed to produce less than 7,000 Panthers, Tigers, and King Tigers combined. The US had produced 55,000 Shermans and the Soviets produced 40,000 T-34's. (The late-model Shermans, especially the ones with 90-mm cannons, were as good or better than the German medium tanks, the Panzer III and Panzer IV.)

Now, the US did go to the extreme in minimizing upgrades. There were a number of fairly minor factory upgrades that would have vastly increased the survivability of the Shermans. The Israelis, after all, managed to make their Sherman competitive with Soviet T-54's up until the 1970s.

 

[constance]

Plus, the US uniforms were nowhere near as nice as any of the European ones.

Constance (Clothes Historian)

 

[Milla]

Plus, the US uniforms were nowhere near as nice as any of the European ones.

Constance (Clothes Historian)

Heh. I actually recall one one of the characters in Slaughterhouse V commenting on that.

 

[MetalBlade]

I think the US eventually would have been pulled into WWII, even if the Japanese did not bomb Pearl Harbor. Hitler was becoming an unstopable force, and I don't think the US would have let that go. After concuring Europe, Hitler probably would have set his eyes on the rest of the world.

 

[TheReasoner]

Plus, the US uniforms were nowhere near as nice as any of the European ones.

Constance (Clothes Historian)

It's a shame to say so, but the German SS uniform was very very nice. German uniforms in general were very nice. I like that style of clothing. Shame the nazis made it unusable... That and the formerly common greeting; Heil.

 

[Redneck]

It's a shame to say so, but the German SS uniform was very very nice. German uniforms in general were very nice. I like that style of clothing. Shame the nazis made it unusable... That and the formerly common greeting; Heil.

Personally, I'd prefer an StG-44 to the SS uniform.

 

[constance]

Personally, I'd prefer an StG-44 to the SS uniform.

Heheh. I think it would chafe.

 

[redkingjoe]

not only uniform, the European fashion are much better than the US...go to Paris to buy the best fashion.

as a seperate note, i think the US was inescapable from the WW2....the japanese and the german will go after US definitely

 

[TheReasoner]

Personally, I'd prefer an StG-44 to the SS uniform.

Pfff

 

[GrinningDwarf]

Rome won wars too. Britain won them. France. Germany. Sweden. Egypt. Babylonia. Your empire will fall like theirs did. It's inevitable. You do not have a monopoly on winning. Nor will you have a monopoly on falling.Be that to a foreign enemy, economy, internal unrest or whatever. Your empire will fall - like all other empires have.

I'd have to agree with you there. All I can do is my part to see that it doesn't happen in my lifetime.